|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 28, 2013 13:48:20 GMT -5
It is to be remembered that Fisch worked as a fur cutter. Could this have given him the lump of flesh Condon spoke of? I believe this came up on the board once before, and I can't remember what, if any, conclusions were drawn.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2013 16:21:25 GMT -5
Since we're on this subject I wanted to link up both Pam and Rab's positions on this: Pam: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/369/bag-bodyRab: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/308/bone-bagGiven the time of year the body was presumably left in the woods,--late winter, with spring just three weeks away--it strikes me as highly unlikely the decomposing body would have remained in the same place for so long given all the hungry animals looking to feed not only for themselves but for their "newborns", as the warm weather approached. This has always been an issue with me, and it ought to have been an issue in Hauptmann's defense. I don't recall his lawyer, Reilly, bringing it up, but if it should have been, and if an expert been called to state the near impossibility of the child's body remaining in one place, so neatly, for so many weeks at that time of year, while this would not itself have exonerated Hauptmann it would have raised issues, such as whether he had an accomplice as well as,--my pet hypothesis--the likelihood that there was help from some member of the household staff, as where the body was found was literally within sight of the Lindbergh estate. Sometimes my memory is really good about certain things but with others not so much. I am having a bad day in that regard so please bear with me.... I've always felt the child had been left in that bag the whole time - where ever he was. I've also had a problem with the fact his heart and liver remained untouched. As I consulted with different science people and various experts I hit on the Fox "answer." In New Jersey, they scavenge for dead animals at night and savor road-kill regardless of how old it is. They do not over eat so they'll typically bury their "left-overs" under dirt, leaves, or snow to hide it from other animals returning only when they're hungry again. They are also known to over stock food and will continue to stock what they find regardless of what they already have stored. (It still doesn't address the heart/liver issue tho) The fact is this place was within sight of Highfields led me to believe it would be a good place to dump the body without getting any closer. Your point about Hauptmann's defense is solid. Fawcett placed on raising this issue and one of his PI put together a report on the temperatures. No one believed this child had originally been there. I recall, and I forgot to mention this in my earlier post, that "emergency" phone lines had to be put in for the Lindbergh Estate to recieve the flood of calls/tips coming in. They ran along the road but in the wood line. None of those Workers noticed anything despite being (about) 40 feet from where the child was supposed to have been. Furthermore, the SP regularly patrolled these lines thinking the Press would attempt to tap them. Michael: wasn't Hauptmann was up on first degree murder charges and only first degree murder? Yes. It was the greyist of grey attempt at legitimizing Murder 1. Hauptmann would have had to kill the child in the commission of a burglary (stealing his sleeping suit). That means they would have to prove he himself did it, and on site. If there was a question as to who actually killed him, or if he was killed somewhere else, like in Mercer County where he was found - then no Murder 1. Trying Hauptmann as a "Lone-Wolf" was essential to this legal wrangling of the common law. If, for example, the sleeping suit was never returned, then that too would have ruined this whole thing. It's one big rubix cube but they pulled it off. Did they believe it? No they did not, but they were certain he was involved and should suffer these consequences all the same. Squibb mentions the wording "animal food" being stamped onto the bag. I am wondering where the powdered milk use comes into play. Squibb does not mention this in their report. Is the powdered milk related to the "0224 O.J.L." that is stamped on the bag near the top? Yes, I believe this represented the date and lot. It traced back to Kraft. Once these bags got to their destination, they usually were sold and re-used for other products - in this case animal food. Perhaps they did just that. Since the oats were sprouting they must have become exposed to light at some point. Also the coal dust and that foot bone were not dislodged so manipulation of this bag could have been minimal by the police. It's so hard to say. If they were drying things out then anything could have happened. Things could have been removed then put back in - like the bone, twigs, leaves. It's like a roll of the dice without a source of information to direct us. Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to say was if animals were pulling the body into the woods, could some of the bones have become separated from the body along the path used by the animals. We know the corpse was missing hands, part of an arm and a leg with its foot. I suppose these parts could have been pulled off by the animals who then made off with them. Would it have been possible for the whole skeleton to stay together until it was in the woods? I agree. It's why I think they might have scooped up pieces in that radius which simply got sent off to Squibb for them to find. There might even be something there to this day. I agree with this. I think the soil deposits on the bones plus the matted leaves take time to happen. My problem with how long the body was there stems from the burlap bag beside the road. How long could it possibly have remained laying there once the corpse had been pulled out of it? There would be no weight in it to keep it from being blown away by passing cars or windy weather. Could it really have laid there for several weeks? I look at it this way: What's the alternative? It had some stuff in it, and I assume it was wet. I see you have an idea below... I think this is a great idea but Allen led the first Police to the site himself. It's kind of an identifiable spot due to the break in the fence. When Fitzgerald and "Zappy" got there they seemed surprised by this bag. Furthermore, there is nothing in Allen's Statement regarding finding this bag - and I would expect it if he had. But even if it were omitted, he gave plenty of interviews and talks where I believe it would have come out. Great question. I've always believed he was. In fact, my memory tells me I read that he was. But I thought it was mentioned in the FBI Summary which I combed over but only found this reference: This doesn't "prove" he was there just that he knew he hadn't shown up. Perhaps I just overlooked the reference - that's always possible. But I will continue to search and if I find it I promise I will make it known.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 28, 2013 17:52:06 GMT -5
To sum up, is this a scenario that might work for the dumping and discovery of the body? CAL Jr. is taken, his kidnappers paid up front. But they decide they want the additional 50K mentioned in the note, so they hold the body hostage to that. Once Lindbergh has complied and paid the 50K ransom, the body is exhumed from where it's been kept (probably somewhere in the Hopewell/Amwell area, as transporting something like that from, say, NYC seems a pretty gruesome prospect). A few days after the ransom drop--so sometime in very early April--the body is dumped by the side of the road, at a kind of turnout area where people make frequent stops, so it'll be discovered quickly. But there's a hitch: animals (foxes, dogs, what have you) drag the body into the woods and out of the bag, so it isn't discovered for almost another month and a half.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 20:08:00 GMT -5
Here is the burlap bag from Ronelle's website: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/burlapbag1.jpgThere is a hole near the bottom. I don't see this mentioned in the Squibb report. Is it mentioned anywhere else by any others who examined the bag? Could this hole have been caused by the animals chewing at it to get at the corpse or could it have been caused by the dragging activity when pulling at the contents of the bag? Does this also mean that he did not say he saw it lying by the roadside when he pulled over to take care of his private business? Wouldn't he have seen it also if it was there? If it wasn't near the body when found, what caused the officers to conclude that it was part of the crime scene? Or did they just include it because it was in the general area of the body? Part of that radius sweep you mentioned? Interesting summation LJ. I like how you describe the kidnappers as holding the corpse hostage. I wonder if there had been an agreed upon way the body was supposed to have been disposed of if the plan hadn't changed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2013 8:20:40 GMT -5
All good stuff to consider. The question I have is why? I still find it hard to believe someone would risk discovery of the corpse in his car for the purpose of the Lindbergh family closure. I guess if the criminal had Lindbergh connections I could see. Why would this criminal care to stop further attempts to extort money ? And its a good question. A very good one. We've seen various moves by this "crew" to look-out for people in the past. Red, for one, by claiming to Jafsie he had nothing to do with this case. Another christian gesture was to give back the $20K. Perhaps it was a psychological reason. Or maybe someone on the inside was involved and this is how you conclude the extortion end of things. I would say look around at the other things going on to see if any reason might "fit" in with other stuff you see. There's an "as if" aspect to Cemetery John's dealings with Condon, as in CJ is dealing with Condon as if it was impossible for Condon or anyone else to know during the period in which the negotiations were being conducted that the child was dead, therefore I can't help but surmise that CJ had to know that the discovery of the child's body would be impossible during that period because it had yet to be deposited in the woods. I feel the same way John. It would have been suicide to continue with these negotiations and collection if that child had been right there the whole time. The only way around this would be having confidence in their Inside Connection to communicate to them if the body had been found. But there's no guarantee here this could be done timely and still presents a major risk. Is there a chance the babys skull was cracked after he died, like from being thrown out of a moving car? I've considered whether or not this was a postmortem injury in the past. Since Dr. Baden considered suffocation, that really peaked my interest in this possibility. However, a Member here (someone remind me who) pointed out the Autopsy proved the injury bled internally - meaning he was alive when it happened. I don't know and its something I think should be investigated further. I think the suggestion is the baby would be dumped as mentioned after the ransom was paid. What is the description of a shallow grave? It gives me the picture in my mind that it was placed there with a bad attempt to bury the child. Michael do you still believe there is any significance to the newspaper found near the shallow grave? I've seen the word " depression" or " a hole scratched out" or " a shallow hole scooped out" then covered up with dirt and leaves. I had previously believed this was "staged" Gary but over time I've changed that position. I've also changed my position about the paper. I do think its more probable a Reporter put that there to sell more papers. Of course I could be wrong, and I don't think the "staged" event has been completely disproven, but this is where I am at this point. Without a doubt, this is a very risky thing to do. I am not sure if doing this was to bring closure for the Lindberghs or not. It would seem so because it did bring an end to extortion attempts and the Lindberghs could begin the process of mourning and moving on with their lives. I get stuck with this point because why would a kidnapper want to help the family who he victimized to begin with. He steals and murders their child, extorts money and then feels that he needs to help them this way. It just doesn't add up for me. It doesn't for me either. But for the point of showing where this might have happened I'll point out a case which comes to mind which I've referenced in the past: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer_v._WilliamsWhy should Williams care? On the other hand, perhaps it was an act of final cruelty to the Lindberghs. This person could not continue to keep possession of the corpse anyway so instead of burying it so it would never be found, he decides to dump it out in an area that is used for disposing of trash. Realizing that eventually it might be discovered amongst the other discarded items, a final message of contempt by the kidnapper would certainly be communicated by this act. That would definitely be a "psychological" reason, and I am sure there could be more to consider as well. To sum up, is this a scenario that might work for the dumping and discovery of the body? CAL Jr. is taken, his kidnappers paid up front. But they decide they want the additional 50K mentioned in the note, so they hold the body hostage to that. Once Lindbergh has complied and paid the 50K ransom, the body is exhumed from where it's been kept (probably somewhere in the Hopewell/Amwell area, as transporting something like that from, say, NYC seems a pretty gruesome prospect). A few days after the ransom drop--so sometime in very early April--the body is dumped by the side if the road, at a kind of turnout area where people make frequent stops, so it'll be discovered quickly. But there's a hitch: animals (foxes, dogs, what have you) drag the body into the woods and out of the bag, so it isn't discovered for almost another month and a half. That's very close to my position. The exact timing is the only issue I am wresting with at the moment. I do believe it was after April 2nd but exactly when after that date is something I am struggling to better nail down. I think I'm close but it's still a open ended at this point. There is a hole near the bottom. I don't see this mentioned in the Squibb report. Is it mentioned anywhere else by any others who examined the bag? Could this hole have been caused by the animals chewing at it to get at the corpse or could it have been caused by the dragging activity when pulling at the contents of the bag? According to Forensic Chemist Alan Lane, when he reviewed the evidence (1977) he noted the large hole in the near the bottom of the bag then made this observation: " ...that was made with a sharp instrument." I am assuming this hole was made during testing based upon this and this only - I don't have anything else. If it wasn't near the body when found, what caused the officers to conclude that it was part of the crime scene? Or did they just include it because it was in the general area of the body? Part of that radius sweep you mentioned? I think Allen was in a hurry to get into the woods for a normal purpose with nothing else on his mind. He's not interested in what could be perceived as "trash." Once he discovered the corpse he's almost in shock with his mind racing. At that point its about what to do next, and again, I don't see him being concerned with whatever is on the road which may be deemed "trash" to an everyday person. I believe he knew the area and knew the point of entrance into the woods. But again, this is all just my belief, and there's nothing that says I can't be wrong. The Police were aware of burlap bags being in the car Lupica saw, and the issue of a footprint, or footprints being wrapped in burlap may have caused them to instinctively, as Cops, grab that bag when they saw it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 10:41:39 GMT -5
Would you know how quickly reporters made it to the site where the corpse was found? Allen brought the Hopewell police there first, then the NJSP went there. I am almost afraid to ask this.....did LE do anything to secure this crime scene so that evidence was not compromised? I believe I read that reporters were called to Highfields and told there at the same time by Schwarzkopf. Wouldn't this have a bearing on when the newpaper could have been placed at the scene by a reporter?
Does the crumbled up newspaper appear in the initial reports by the officers who responded to the scene? Besides being crumbled, would you know if the newspaper appeared to have been exposed to the elements or did it have a fresh appearance like it was just put there?
I understand the point you are making with your example. He could have sat in silence for the whole trip. Instead, he chose to direct them to the body. But would he have made that choice if the officer hadn't made that emotional/religious connection with him? Is it possible that the inside connection person could have influenced the kidnappers to return the body now that they had the money?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 29, 2013 17:30:30 GMT -5
The idea that the body was tossed out of a car on the side of the road, and dragged by a fox to where it was found, is interesting.
My own first thesis a couple of years ago was that the body was put where it was found as a nasty “message” for Lindbergh. The problem with that thesis was: How could they be sure the “message” would be received? What if William Allen hadn’t noticed it that day? Perhaps it would have been quite some time before someone else noticed it, while further decay set in. So “message” didn’t completely make sense, but neither did negotiating the ransom while the body lay where found. The location of the body seems a strange “compromise”—too close to the road to assure concealment, but too far from the road to absolutely assure discovery.
So maybe it WAS originally tossed just off the road. Gangsters sometimes have tossed the body of rival gang member on an enemy doorstep as a “message.” But they could hardly toss this “message” on Lindbergh’s doorstep with the NSJP stationed at Highfields. Maybe the road where the body was found was as close as they dared to get, and then withdrawal by an animal delayed discovery.
On the other hand, I feel there are some problems with the “fox” thesis. Didn’t Charlie weigh about 40 pounds when kidnapped? Even granting the corpse must have been lighter, I think it would have outweighed a typical fox. And wouldn’t the fox, to drag him, have had to clamp the corpse with his teeth—but we have no signs of this, unless the fox bit into one of the body parts that later were missing.
Also, I don’t see Lindbergh getting closure on this case from such a ghastly discovery—not emotionally. And if one is arguing that Lindbergh controlled the investigation to conceal his own guilt, it seems that discovery of the corpse would work against Lindbergh—didn’t he, for the most part, pull out of the investigation after the body was found?
Didn’t give CJ and/or the kidnappers closure either. Sure, people stopped looking for Charlie after this, but they sure didn’t stop looking for the perps—who had now made themselves liable to a murder rap by letting the body be discovered.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 29, 2013 17:49:25 GMT -5
Lindbergh flew to Connecticut unannounced to the general public. I assure you, there was a Connecticut connection to all of this. A far as anyone knowing that the Lindbergh Family was going to be there on Tuesday...when you are in the woods, you can see and hear everything, whether they are coming, going or even if someone coughs or sneezes. This was pre-planned from the inside and was visually easy to see from the outside.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 29, 2013 18:03:17 GMT -5
My dad is sitting by the window on the left side of the photo (sitting next to his "mother and brother"). As you can see, he had a look all his own. This photo makes me wonder what he was thinking about as he looked out the window. I will rescan this image within a few days so you can see it clearly. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 29, 2013 18:07:01 GMT -5
Bookrefuge: I've always contended (and still deeply feel) that Fisch could not have been Cemetery John due to his extremely short stature and his Yiddishy accent, which Condon would have picked up on right away. People were more ethnocentric back then, or maybe I should say white people were (I know this sounds weird), but even in places like Minnesota there were major conflicts between Danish Luterhans and Norwegian ones. Ethnicity mattered. European ethnicity. It was a different time. As a native New Yorker,--c'mon--Condon knew his ethnic groups, especially as a school teacher. With his volubility, flair with words, intelligence, his classroom experience, I'll betcha Condon could till whether a kid was from not only northern Italy rather than Southern but whether he was of Sicilian or Calabrese background. Guessing Fisch's background would be a virtual no brainer for Condon. Yes, it was dark; he was old; there were distractions. The old man may not have been at the top of his game but I just can't see the Eddie Cantor (edit: I believe I wrote Condon for Cantor,--the two look nothing alike ) can't lookalike Fisch being able to pass himself as anything but what he was. John
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 29, 2013 18:36:20 GMT -5
Good points, John. Someone had asked about his hands, so I mentioned the fur cutter angle, but I don’t really think Fisch was CJ. But he might have been around—the “Italian” “lookout”, for example. Condon WAS a notorious liar, and it’s too bad we don’t have another solid source for CJ’s description. The cemetery guard, Robert Riehl, did NOT get a very good look, but he described the man on the wall as 22 years, 5'3", 135 lbs, slim build –not at all like Hauptmann. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/cem.html I think this thread is moving in too many directions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 20:01:28 GMT -5
Great point! There should have been some teeth marks on some of the bones if animals were working on the remains. I believe the skeletal report made on the bones does not mention any animal teeth marks on the human bones, just on the two bones that belonged to another animal found mixed in with Charlie's bones.
Sorry, BR. I know I am guilty of bringing up things that are not related to the thread you started. I guess I ask to many questions!! I will try to refrain from doing this so much. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 29, 2013 20:34:18 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. Absolutely no need to apologize. We ALL do this, me very much included! I think it’s just the nature of human discussion, and it’s been happening on this board for years, long before you and I came on it. A thread gets started, which leads to a question that branches off from it, and a question that branches off from THAT, etc. It’s very natural and there’s really nothing wrong with it at all, except I think it’s helpful for future researchers, if they’re looking for information, when discussions can be found more under thread headings that directly relate to them.
Anyway, we absolutely can continue this interesting discussion of the bag, the bones, and the burial. It can be a pain trying to locate and dredge up an old thread that ended on the board maybe five years ago just so we can stay “on topic.” By all means, Amy, keep going with the burial angle and questions—it’s leading into some interesting facets of the case!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2013 21:34:23 GMT -5
This should give you an idea where the newspaper was found in relationship to the road. Anyone could have approached from the back to put this paper there. I will look up this information for you ASAP as to the specifics you are asking for. BR: I watched my Jack Russell Terrier pull a full case of water across my dining room floor, push it close to the counter, then use it as a launching pad to jump into my kitchen sink so she could get at the chicken wings I had there. I personally don't see a problem for a hungry fox pulling a decaying corpse of a 20 month year old 50 feet into the woods. There's a lot we don't know. It could be that other scavengers pulled it apart before the fox got to it. What we do know is there was animal hair found in the bag, around the corpse, and on the corpse. I'll check about the teeth marks, but even if they aren't recorded how or what ate parts of him without teeth? Anyway, not trying to talk you into anything. I'll get back to you with what I turn up.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 30, 2013 8:18:24 GMT -5
Michael, that is a nice graphic; thanks. Can you indicate approximately where on the map they found (1) the burlap bag, and (2) the newspaper?
I am troubled by the fact that Lupica saw burlap bags in the car of the man who had the ladder. It gives a disturbing sense of singularity to the crime. Something else occurs to me right now—it’s just a random thought. If Lindbergh hired someone to take his son (it’s no secret that I disagree with this idea), it seems to me odd that his hirelings would have taken Charlie in a burlap bag. Even if Lindbergh intended to remove his son for eugenics reasons, and wanted him raised at the Skillman Institute (as Lloyd Gardner has recently been suggesting), I don’t see a burlap bag as a likely method of transport for such a scenario.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 30, 2013 8:32:45 GMT -5
Fess up, Michael, he pulled a case of BUD LIGHT across that floor. We all know dogs can haul large quantities of beer, as the following clip proves (so your example is unfair): www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_HBagK2ETs
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 30, 2013 9:28:49 GMT -5
That was a good one..Bookrefuge..very fuuny. Also Amy35...Please don't stiffle yourself..you have some great thoughts and ideas! AS for you Michael..man..you've been workin hard! Thanks for the drawing! The burlap bag could have been used to put animals in it long before it was used for the baby's body. (Many people would use them to trap animals back then and still today!) (LIve Action!) I can only imagine that they didn't put Charlie Jr. in a bag when they took him during the kidnapping. They probably told him that he was going for a "car ride" with Will Rogers and was probably happy to go with who ever took him. No crying..no tears...right?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 30, 2013 10:11:47 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 10:53:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the map Michael. I see what you mean about an approach from the back end. BR has already asked you about where on this map the newspaper and the burlap bag would be located. I am interested in the approach William Allen used when entering the woods for his pit stop. Did he enter from the side that would have required him to cross over the stream to reach the area containing the corpse or did he use the opposite side past the stream. This seems to be a more direct route.
Thanks BR. One of the reasons I am probing this is that in my fluctuating theory I feel that there is a local connection to this kidnapping. Use of this particular area as a dumping ground for trash and unwanted items is something that would be known to persons who are very familiar with these woods and might even have used them in the past for such a purpose or as Aimee has mentioned, hunting.
An interesting article. I know that Lindbergh made unannounced car trips from Hopewell disguising himself so he would not be recognized. I have never read anything about a flight. Perhaps Michael may know if this is accurate. Newspaper articles claimed all kinds of things during this whole event.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 30, 2013 11:52:06 GMT -5
Regarding the burlap bag. It had oats and animal fur (hair) in it. Looking at the Internet, I see that burlap bags have long been considered an ideal storage medium for oats. The following scenario occurs to me:
(1) The burlap bag is used to store oats in the Hauptmann home. (2) Hauptmann goes on a hunting trip. He needs a burlap bag. He takes an oats bag that is used up. Naturally, a few stray grains of oats are still in the bag. (3) Hauptmann uses the bag to haul hunting game. When Michael mentioned the fox thesis, I thought maybe the fox left behind some fur when it stuck its head inside the bag. But it makes more sense to me that the fur of dead animals, left in the bag over a period of time, would be much more likely to leave traces of fur. (4) When Hauptmann plans the crime, perhaps he figures it’s going to be easier to carry the child if he’s put inside a bag (assuming the child is either dead or doped). So what bag to use? If, as a hunter, he’s already used burlap bags to carry quarry, these bags might naturally occur to him—you might say that burlap bags are “in his comfort zone.”
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 30, 2013 12:41:15 GMT -5
Looking back, I see references to the bag being likely used for “animal feed” so maybe it’s more suited to a farm than the Hauptmanns‘ kitchen. I expect Michael can set me straight on that. But I do like the potential of a possible link between Hauptmann's history as a hunter and the burlap bag.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 30, 2013 15:40:05 GMT -5
The notion that the child's body was placed in the woods the night of the kidnapping,--which had to be a part of the Wilentz scenario--is coming to seem increasingly irrational to me as a practical matter, as even if Hauptmann was the perp he'd be out of his ever lovin' mind to negotiate with stranger Condon for the ransom of a child he knows his dead and could be discovered at any moment.
There would have to be some "inner assurance" on Hauptmann's (or any perp's) mind that there could be no such discovery, at least not while the negotiations were underway. Had the body been deposited in the woods the night of the kidnapping, whether in panic or out of a twisted sadism coming from a desire to have the body left so close to Lindberg's estate, either would make the graveyard meetings exceedingly dangerous propositions; and from a criminal standpoint, highly unprofessional in the bargain.
A couple of thoughts: first, the prospect of wild animals devouring and tugging away at a dead child's body in the spring can't help but make this amateur detective wonder if this was intentional. To return to the issue of sadism (and jealousy, implicit in Wilentz's prosecution) this would be all the more shocking and hurtful to Lindbergh and his family: to see the remains of his young son in tatters, hither and yon, so close to home, yet (being dead) so far away. Secondly, that it was explicitly stated in the nursery note that "we have been planning this (crime) for a very long time" may suggest the opposite: a common criminal trying to get into the big leagues; a man who only made up his mind to kidnap the child fairly recently, maybe from gathering some inside knowledge that the family would be home that night, or some other scraps of informnation that would make the snatch feel like a sure thing. This seeimg work of professionals would (and did) throw the law enforcement people off, suggesting careful planning, when in reality the crime had only recently been hatched, maybe no more than a month previously. Unfortunately for the Hauptmann is innocent case, this would suggest a small timer of the Hauptmann type rather than skilled professionals who wouldn't have clumsily left behind clues (the ladder), dropped the child's body so near to the estate, negotiated for the ransom with the possibility of discovery.
|
|
|
Post by gary2 on Jul 30, 2013 15:47:33 GMT -5
Why are we trying to relate the bags to Hauptmann? I see no relation to burlap bags to Hauptmann at all. The singlelarity of the crime is more unbelievabe to me. The complexity of this kind of crime all hints to the actions of several than one. I have no problem Hauptmann building the ladder, writing the notes, and being the prop man of this crime. There is so much more than just what happened. Its what it would have required if it was successful and the child survived the exit. In addition lookouts, inside information, peddling the notes, a visitor with Breckinridge, three men at the lumber yard, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2013 19:43:27 GMT -5
Would you know how quickly reporters made it to the site where the corpse was found? Allen brought the Hopewell police there first, then the NJSP went there. I am almost afraid to ask this.....did LE do anything to secure this crime scene so that evidence was not compromised? I believe I read that reporters were called to Highfields and told there at the same time by Schwarzkopf. Wouldn't this have a bearing on when the newpaper could have been placed at the scene by a reporter? Does the crumbled up newspaper appear in the initial reports by the officers who responded to the scene? Besides being crumbled, would you know if the newspaper appeared to have been exposed to the elements or did it have a fresh appearance like it was just put there? You are right Amy. Schwarzkopf called the Reporters for an important announcement. At the time they didn't know what it was. At exactly 6:55PM on May 12th they were told of the discovery. As soon as the meeting was over the "grave site" was completely swarmed and over run. The Police would eventually take control of the situation but that took time. Trooper Carmody conducted a search of the area around where the body was discovered on May 13th and found this crumpled newspaper at 11:20AM at the foot of the tree stuck in between some small limbs. Nothing about it's condition other then "crumpled." Michael, that is a nice graphic; thanks. Can you indicate approximately where on the map they found (1) the burlap bag, and (2) the newspaper? I cannot. We have to assume it based upon the scene. I do know the Tpr. Carmody said the newspaper was found " a little to the left and 50 yards from where the baby was found." That tells me it would have to be the 2nd and most furthest tree in the sketch because, as Gary can tell you, the "V" where the child was discovered is not 50 yards east to west - so that nearest tree couldn't possibly be the one the newspaper was found because it would be way too close. I am troubled by the fact that Lupica saw burlap bags in the car of the man who had the ladder. It gives a disturbing sense of singularity to the crime. Not sure how you can get to this conclusion based upon the bags seen in the car. There was at least one footprint the Police assumed had been a foot inside of burlap. Furthermore, how would one carry a child down a ladder, or hand it off to someone on a ladder? On top of that, why would the Kidnapper pull over like he did for Lupica if he wasn't expecting someone? Lot's to think about. Not saying you are wrong just that I think you'd have to dismiss quite a few other possibilities in order to get there.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 30, 2013 20:23:38 GMT -5
...o.k. o.k...JUST one more thought about the burlap bag...Large quantities of corn, hops or yeast were needed to make moonshine. How else would they transport their main ingredient for mash???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 23:55:38 GMT -5
We have discussed on this board about when and why Charlie was dumped on Mount Rose Road. It was certainly a risky thing to do and have wondered why the kidnappers would bother doing such a thing since it ended up helping Lindbergh by ending further extortion attempts. I have been thinking about this and an idea occurred to me recently when I was going over the spending of the ransom money. The ransom was paid on April 2. Three days later(April 5) the first ransom bill($20 gold certificate)was identified in New York City at the East River Savings Bank of Manhattan. The newspapers were now reporting about the serial numbers of the ransom bills being recorded. Only one other ransom bill is found on April 14. It is a $5.00 U.S. Treasury note. It was found by a teller at another New York City bank. No more ransom money would turn up until May 19. There was a halt to the spending. These kidnappers had not returned Charlie to Lindbergh after the ransom was paid. They had sent him on a bogus mission to retrieve his son. Lindbergh had fulfilled his end of the extortion and now they realized they would have to fulfill theirs. Lindbergh had shielded them from capture during the negotiations and payment of the ransom. They in return had double-crossed him. They are now fearful of apprehension. The decision is made to take the risk and return Charlie to Lindbergh. They retrieve his remains and dump them on Mount Rose Road in April and then wait until they are found. The remains are discovered May 12. The kidnappers have completed their end of the deal and once again begin to spend the ransom. The money starts turning up in banks on May 19. Just a theory on the when and the why of Charlie being found. And here I am, outside the box yet again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2013 19:00:02 GMT -5
Great theory Amy. I wanted to inject some information which may, or may not be important in light of this:
Rab has shown that at least some of the money was passed in the order in which it was packed. I have always argued that a pattern in one place doesn't necessarily mean there would be in another. Furthermore, even if there were it could mean more then one person is employing the same tendency, or of course it could mean there is only one person.
The first bill discovered is the $20. Obviously this was spent almost immediately and discovered almost immediately as well. There were (250) $20 Federal Reserve Notes listed on 5 separate pages. If these were being spent in the packing order then they are ALL in circulation by the time the next bill is spent. Why? Because its a $5.
And so let's look at the packing sequence as it applies to the next bill discovered which we all know is a $5 found on April 14th approximately 10 days later. This $5 is the 33rd listed on page 2 of the packing list. The second $5 is the May 19th bill which is 46th on page 13.
It stands to reason that the smaller the bill - the less noticeable, and more likely it stays in circulation longer. (I remember one $5 was traced back to a Bank that not only did not catch it but included it in an Employee's pay). By the same reasoning, the bigger the more scrutiny. Moreover, after the Gold EO - the Gold Note bills were much, much, much more likely to catch someone's eye. And so, were all Federal Reserve 20s already in circulation by, at the latest - April 14th? By late August of '34 only (4) Federal Reserve $20s had been discovered. These were listed on a total of (5) pages. Of those (5) pages the $20s discovered were found listed on 1, 3, and 5. That would mean the top, the middle, and the bottom of the packet which contained them. Were they pulling random $20s from the pack? Or, if the packing order theory is correct, this would mean that all of these 20s had indeed been put into circulation, but of the (250) only (4) were actually found.
And so, it seems to me, if this is true you're theory cannot be correct. If not, the packing order theory is flawed, and the spending patterns could not have been strictly followed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 22:31:26 GMT -5
I must say Michael that your response post has put a whole different spin on my theory! I never gave consideration to the serial number sequence in regards to the way the money was being spent. I was just focusing on the fact that only two ransom bills were found up until May 19. You have brought up a very interesting challenge to my theory. I definitely have some comments and questions for you.
1) Sequential spending based on the packing order of the bills - If I am understanding you correctly, based on the packing order, the $20 Federal reserve note found on April 5 is the last one out of 250 twenties. That means that 249 others had to have already been spent in order to get to the next bill in the sequence by serial number which is the $5 note that is found on April 14th?? I am truly stunned by this whole packing order spending idea. I cannot believe that there are 249 other $20 ransom bills floating around out there at this particular time and not one of them is found until October 26th! They are finding the $5's and there is even one $10 on October 22nd. In fact, only 4 $20 federal reserve ransom notes and 4 $20 gold certificate ransom notes are found until Hauptmann's arrest in 1934. This whole packing order spending theory does not work for me at all. Many more ransom notes would have turned up if they were being spent by packing order. Where did this sequential spending theory come from? Did LE see this as the spending pattern for the ransom money?
2) One person or multiple spenders - It would seem that making a case for one spender is easier if the money is being spent in packing order. That person has total control over the use of all the dollar bills. He could spend them in order if he so chooses, spending one pack of money at a time. If the ransom money packages were divided up between say three people and those 3 persons also spent their money in packing order, then the sequential order of spending would be affected by how much and how quickly each person chose to spend their share. I don't see the packing order theory working if you have more than one person spending money. This brings me to the J.J. Faulkner deposit on May 1, 1933. Were those $10 ransom notes found to be in packing order when the deposit was made? What about the money found in Hauptmann's garage? Was it still in sequential order since it hadn't been spent yet?
With regards to how this all impacts my theory that the kidnapper(s)stopped spending money until Charlie was found in the Mount Rose Woods, I feel that it would indicate that only one person had started to spend the money since only two bills were discovered until May 19th. He stopped spending and then resumed after he knew Lindbergh had Charlie back. This is doable if only one person is spending the money. Had there been multiple spenders immediately following the payment, I tend to think that more than two ransom bills would have been discovered between April 3rd and May 19th. However, because of the 2 ransom notes that were found and those that would be found up until Hauptmann's arrest, it is not, to me and my limited knowledge, reflective of packing order spending.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2013 7:22:21 GMT -5
The first thing I wanted to do was post Finn's Report on the bills in question to provide you a little more information that you might be interested in. Notice the date... As a side note, many of these reports were "re-typed" and date used when they were instead of when they were actually written. Someone in either NY or NJ would sometimes hand-write the real or actual date it was written. I mention this for anyone who might be researching and stumped at a date on certain reports that don't "jibe." This can be a possible explanation: The second thing I have to admit to is that anything to do with the "numbers" does not play into my strengths. I have traditionally used Rab as a "control" to my posts on it. That's not to say we always agree, but his counter-arguments can give me fits. That's good for research purposes because the idea is to find the truth and not always be "right."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2013 8:24:16 GMT -5
1) Sequential spending based on the packing order of the bills - If I am understanding you correctly, based on the packing order, the $20 Federal reserve note found on April 5 is the last one out of 250 twenties. That means that 249 others had to have already been spent in order to get to the next bill in the sequence by serial number which is the $5 note that is found on April 14th?? I am not sure where it was on the list, however, based upon the "theory" that bills were being spent in their packing order (as they were assembled into packs) this would indicate the possibility. I suggest by the 14th because that's when the 1st $5 is found. It could be they started with the FR $20s, but became frightened, then began the $5s instead. Regardless, since the (4) FR $20s which were discovered were from the top, middle, and bottom of the packet, if the spending pattern were held true - then ALL of them would have to have been spent when considering the position of all (4) on the list. So that date could be later depending upon which position the one on the bottom was found (which I don't have in front of me). This whole packing order spending theory does not work for me at all. Many more ransom notes would have turned up if they were being spent by packing order. Where did this sequential spending theory come from? Did LE see this as the spending pattern for the ransom money? According to Special Agent Seery, "originally" it was decided to check the serial numbers recovered against the serial number sequence as packed in order to find if groups of bills were being spent in specific areas which could lead to the different parties spending them. Their first step was to interview Condon because they needed to know if the original packs had been divided up in order to be squeezed into the Ransom Box. Of course Condon proved to be an obsticle by lying and pretending he didn't remember. This caused them to figure it out themselves by having a replica built then packing it themselves. Anyway, the point is that after the J. J. Faulkner deposit, they were able to see these bills were in order. As a result they took an in-depth look at everything and drew the conclusion by early August 1934 that: - All the five-dollar ransom bills are in circulation.
- The major portion of the ten and twenty dollar gold certificates have not as yet been placed in circulation and are still being held by the kidnappers.
And so, if they are right here it seems to me those $20s should be gone too. However, ALL of these $20s never being found throws a wrench into most theories - including this one.
|
|